- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
Originally posted by Metal BrainThis is simply bad logic on your part. You've already admitted that co2 can and do heat up the atmosphere, so to say that it's not realistic to suggest that co2 can be blamed for the recent warming trend is to say that the emissions are so low as to be negligable. But what else can explain the rise in temperature, and how well does co2 match the warming?
CO2 lags behind temperatures according to ice core data, so blaming only CO2 is not realistic.
Historically, global warming has been triggered by some natural phenomenon, like increased solar activity, the wobbly orbit of our planet, a lot of volcanic activity followed by a not so active period, and so on. Even after these natural triggers pass, the planet's atmosphere keeps heating up to a point. This is what ice core data (among other things) tells us. This, and that the co2 lags behind by approximately 200 years. The only good (if no doubt simplistic) explanation is that co2 traps heat, allowing more co2 to be released from melting ice among other things, which traps more heat, and so on, until an equilibrium is established. So even after the initial trigger is gone, the heat trapped by greenhouse gases can keep the process going for quite some time afterwards. And let's not forget that water vapour is another potent greenhouse gas, that will take effect almost immediately when an outside source triggers a warming of the atmosphere. This is why co2 lags behind initially. The build-up of co2 takes time when natural causes triggers the warming. If we look at the current warming trend there is no such natural trigger to be found. Solar activity, planet orbit, volcanic activities has been non-existant to negligable. Whatever natural force you consider, climate science currently tells us is not enough to explain the current warming of the lower atmosphere.
So, we're left with just one known possibility. Quoting Emanuel from the talk I linked to:
How do we know that this recent increase in temperatures is because of carbon dioxide? If all we know is that carbon dioxide started rocketing up, and temperatures rocketed up, it could be a coincidence, but elementary physics, not computer models, tells us that's what we should expect. But what kind of measurements can we bring to bear to point the finger at the actual cause? Well, here's one thing...
He goes on to show us two maps of the world with data on how temperature in the atmosphere has changed since 1979. Actually, the first map shows how the temperature has increased in the lower atmosphere, from 1979-2012, and the second map shows how the upper atmosphere has cooled from 1979-2006. This is exactly what is expected if co2 is the culprit. He calls it the finger print of co2.
Also, consider Richard Muller. He, as you probably know, was sceptical about anthropogenic global warming, so he put together his own team of climate sceptical scientists to go over all the data again and figure out what's going on. They reached the same conclusion, that only co2 emissions can explain the recent warming trend. It's the only thing that fits with measured data.
...we could rule out every scientific theory other than the greenhouse gas theory...
I think it's not so unrealistic to "blame" carbon dioxide, and note that all this comes from, not computer models, but measured data and elementary physics.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by FabianFnasActually he was talking about Humy and not C Hess
"...he thought he [C Hess] knew for so long is wrong. 97% of climate scientists do NOT subscribe to his [C Hess] alarmist views at all..."
What? 97% ? Do you have any sources for that exceptionally precise data? 97% Wow, someone knows more about C Hess than C Hess knows himself.
Metal Brain? Are you a liar? No? Then give us the source of such a percentage!
And the ~97% of climate scientists that support man induced global warming
and climate change comes from here:
http://theconsensusproject.com/
"Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature"
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024
I see Metal Brain is still giving the same old misinformation about the Pliocene period.
So, to put the record straight (yet again ) :-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pliocene_climate
"...Carbon dioxide concentration during the mid Pliocene has been estimated at around 400 ppmv from 13C/12C ratio in organic marine matter[12] and stomatal density of fossilized leaves,[13] ...."
So through most of the Pliocene period, atmospheric CO2 concentration was at about 400ppm which is higher than what it was, say, 200 years ago, and that is one explanation of why Pliocene generally had a higher temperature than in the last, say, 200 years. Only recently in modern times has exceeded 400ppm and only seasonally at that with most of the years it being still below 400ppm but that is due to change within the next few years (about ~8 years ) when it will finally always seasonally fluctuate ABOVE 400ppm. See the second graph down at
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/400-ppm-co2-february-2015-18710
labeled "Carbon Dioxide on the rise" to see this seasonal CO2 fluctuation.
One explanation why climate is not as hot as it was in most albeit not all of of the Pliocene, albeit far from the only explanation and I am NOT claiming the contrary, is because basic physics tells us it takes time for the higher CO2 concentration to have its full warming effects.
Another explanation is that the annual average C02 concentration has still not quite reached exactly 400ppm although it is getting pretty close now. To see this, see:
http://co2now.org/current-co2/co2-now/annual-co2.html
"The 2014 average annual concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere (Mauna Loa Observatory) is 398.55 parts per million (ppm). "
Also note:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pliocene_climate
"...decreasing carbon dioxide levels during late Pliocene may have contributed substantially to global cooling and the onset of northern hemisphere glaciation...."
In other words, there is evidence that CO2 decreased below 400ppm in late Pliocene and, guess what, the temperature also decreased! And by a significant amount as well. This only CONFIRMS the link between the two we suspect.
In short, there is nothing about the data about the Pliocene period that indicates that CO2 may not be one of the significant factors driving global warming. I showed him this before but he just ignored it.
There, sorted.
Originally posted by humyWill I be surprised when this facts will be, yet again, challenged by a bunch of pseudoarguments, personal attacks, deviations from subject, demand of proofs, discussion about semantics, and other tricks by those who pretend they have a scientific degree but refuse to tell us what it is ... have I forgotten anything?
There, sorted.
"There, sorted." Yes, technically.
Originally posted by C Hess"This is simply bad logic on your part. You've already admitted that co2 can and do heat up the atmosphere, so to say that it's not realistic to suggest that co2 can be blamed for the recent warming trend is to say that the emissions are so low as to be negligable. But what else can explain the rise in temperature, and how well does co2 match the warming?"
This is simply bad logic on your part. You've already admitted that co2 can and do heat up the atmosphere, so to say that it's not realistic to suggest that co2 can be blamed for the recent warming trend is to say that the emissions are so low as to be negligable. But what else can explain the rise in temperature, and how well does co2 match the warming?
H ...[text shortened]... nd note that all this comes from, not computer models, but measured data and elementary physics.
You are misquoting me when saying I don't think CO2 is causing some warming today. I never said that. Just because I have always said CO2 causes warming is not right to say I use bad logic. It all depends how much warming is caused by CO2 and nobody has presented evidence to what extent CO2 is causing warming. It is as if you are still assuming CO2 causes temperature rise and not the other way around as is factually known. The earth has been warming before much burning of fossil fuels. Show me why the earth warmed between 1900 and 1940. It wasn't CO2 so what was it? It was natural causes and that is why your logic is flawed.
If you can explain why the Pliocene was a lot warmer than today please do so, but until then you are jumping the gun by claiming my logic is bad. Also, does CO2 match the warming or lag behind it today? The earth has been warming for over 200 years so you are jumping the gun by saying CO2 matches the warming. It is probably both, but proving how much from what cause is not as clear as you make it sound.
"Historically, global warming has been triggered by some natural phenomenon, like increased solar activity"
Yes, there are other factors and little is known about past solar activity. Solar activity could be the primary factor driving the past warming of the Pliocene. You simply do not know that solar is a negligible factor as you claim. Nobody knows. Those that claim they do are not honest.
You can blame CO2 for some of the warming, but until you establish cause and effect better than you are you are the one being unrealistic. That is basic science and physics.
Originally posted by humy"I see Metal Brain is still giving the same old misinformation about the Pliocene period.
I see Metal Brain is still giving the same old misinformation about the Pliocene period.
So, to put the record straight (yet again ) :-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pliocene_climate
"...Carbon dioxide concentration during the mid Pliocene has been estimated at around 400 ppmv from 13C/12C ratio in organic marine matter[12] and stomatal density of fossiliz ...[text shortened]... ctors driving global warming. I showed him this before but he just ignored it.
There, sorted.
So, to put the record straight (yet again ) :-"
That is false and you know it. I didn't give any misinformation at all, but you are. Comparing CO2 levels 200 years ago with the Pliocene is deliberately misleading and you know it. Compare CO2 levels today with the Pliocene, not 200 years ago. This is exactly the kind of dishonesty that makes you look like a sore loser.
I never claimed that CO2 levels today were the same as the Pliocene, I said the were close and they are. Once again you are using dishonest tactics because that is the best you can do without admitting you have no good answer for why the Pliocene was much warmer than today.
"basic physics tells us it takes time for the higher CO2 concentration to have its full warming effects."
This again? How many times do I have to ask for your source of information only for you to fail to provide any before you give up?
"In other words, there is evidence that CO2 decreased below 400ppm in late Pliocene and, guess what, the temperature also decreased! And by a significant amount as well. This only CONFIRMS the link between the two we suspect."
This is another failure on your part. Of course there is a link between the two, but you keep ignoring cause and effect. CO2 lags behind temperatures. When temps decrease so do CO2 levels. Is it so darn difficult for you to grasp this fact? Why is it so easy for you to discard important facts like this? If you believe a theory call it that. When words like "may have" are used it suggests a theory, not a fact. Learn the difference.
"In short, there is nothing about the data about the Pliocene period that indicates that CO2 may not be one of the significant factors driving global warming. I showed him this before but he just ignored it."
This is more of your dishonesty. I didn't ignore anything. You are simply ignoring known cause and effect. Once again, CO2 lags behind temperatures. You cannot continually pretend it is the other way around whenever it is convenient for you. That is not science, that is dishonesty. You say a lot of things, but you need to prove it and you don't do that.
I told you this before and you ignored it. Stick to the facts.
Originally posted by googlefudgeWe already know that. Even I agree that man is a factor and I always have. That is all that 97% represents. It doesn't indicate how much of a factor man is, just that man is a factor and nothing more.
Actually he was talking about Humy and not C Hess
And the ~97% of climate scientists that support man induced global warming
and climate change comes from here:
http://theconsensusproject.com/
"Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature"
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024
Like Fred Singer said, "the nights are slightly warmer, maybe that is it". It certainly does not support the alarmist views of you, humy and sonhouse. Most climate scientists are not alarmists. This is a fact. Get used to it.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
Originally posted by Metal BrainThe bad logic on your part is that you assume that the atmosphere must first heat up before co2 can be released, but at the same time you accept that co2 alone can trap heat, and thereby raise temperatures. If we release co2 directly into the atmosphere, you don't need that initial, natural trigger to first heat up the atmosphere. Like I explained, historically, once a natural trigger has set the ball in motion, the natural cause can cease, and co2 keeps the heating process going. This is the elementary physics part, demonstrated in experiments starting with John Tyndall in 1859.
It is as if you are still assuming CO2 causes temperature rise and not the other way around as is factually known.
In short, we are the cause this time, by releasing co2 directly into the atmosphere.
The assumption that we are the cause is supported by the fact that we've observed no natural trigger that can explain the latest warming trend, that our co2 emissions matches the temperature record within a good margin for error, and that this is what we expect from physics. It all fits. Now, if you can point us to a natural, observed, measured cause that can explain this recent warming trend better (solar activity, milencovic cycle, volcanic inactivity all fails), I'd be surprised and shocked (for obvious reasons), but you'd turn my head around.
As for the pliocene, I believe Humy had a response to that. I'll just wait until I see your reply to his post.
Originally posted by FabianFnasNo surprises that its happened yet again.
Will I be surprised when this facts will be, yet again, challenged by a bunch of pseudoarguments, personal attacks, deviations from subject, demand of proofs, discussion about semantics, and other tricks by those who pretend they have a scientific degree but refuse to tell us what it is ...
I guess he will never change.
I didn't even bother wasting my time reading past his first comment of his post ( "...That is false and you know it." ) for I am all too familiar with his usual rhetoric so, nothing new there to read!
Originally posted by C Hess"In short, we are the cause this time, by releasing co2 directly into the atmosphere."
The bad logic on your part is that you assume that the atmosphere must first heat up before co2 can be released, but at the same time you accept that co2 alone can trap heat, and thereby raise temperatures. If we release co2 directly into the atmosphere, you don't need that initial, natural trigger to first heat up the atmosphere. Like I explained, historical ...[text shortened]... ocene, I believe Humy had a response to that. I'll just wait until I see your reply to his post.
Like the link Googlefudge posted you are being misleading. By saying we are the cause you are implying that we are the only cause which has not been established and most climate scientists do not agree with you if that is what you are implying. I agree that Milankovich cycles are likely to trigger ice ages, but that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about warming.
Nothing I have said contradicts John Tyndall or elementary physics. It is not enough that CO2 causes warming. What matters is how much it causes warming and you don't know that. You are merely speculating based on your own bias which is likely a political bias based on your previous posts. It is common for people to have formed an opinion before they look for evidence and I believe you are one of those people. When I started looking into this subject I had no opinion. I was just looking for the truth and you seem to be fighting the facts.
When I say that most climate scientists only agree that man is a factor and that is all do you believe it or do you reject this fact? Keep in mind that "a factor" is very different from "the only cause" or the "primary factor". A factor means that man is contributing to climate change but it could be a very small percentage. I'm asking you this to find out if you reject facts that are inconvenient to your belief system. I find many people do this on a regular basis, especially humy.
Originally posted by humyRejecting facts again I see. You are a very dishonest person and everyone can see that you are. 200 years ago has nothing to do with today and everyone on here knows that. You are trying to move the goal post again. If you can't debate honestly you have lost. It is only your ego that prevents you from admitting your failure.
No surprises that its happened yet again.
I guess he will never change.
I didn't even bother wasting my time reading past his first comment of his post ( "...That is false and you know it." ) for I am all too familiar with his usual rhetoric so, nothing new there to read!
1 edit
Originally posted by humyI forgot there to mention a third significant explanation:
One explanation why climate is not as hot as it was in most albeit not all of of the Pliocene, albeit far from the only explanation and I am NOT claiming the contrary, is because basic physics tells us it takes time for the higher CO2 concentration to have its full warming effects.
Another explanation is that the annual average C02 concentration has ...[text shortened]... not quite reached exactly 400ppm although it is getting pretty close now. To see this, see:
...
Yet another explanation for most of the Pliocene period being warmer than the present day ( except the late Pliocene ) is that the albedo of the Earth would have been lower than what it is today due to less glaciers at the poles. Less ice means less albedo which means more solar radiation absorbed at the Earth's surface which means higher average global temperatures maintained -simple! The late Pliocene had more glaciers as well as less CO2 which at least partly explains why it was cooler.